Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Public Demand Recovery Act,1913 (III of 1913)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 4

“That they were jointly recoverable and its recover by suit is not barred by Law’. Omission of these words does not affect validity of a certificate. Shafiqur Rahman Vs. Certificate Officer (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 234. ....View Full Judgment

Section 4

Issuance of certificate under section 4 of the Act itself on the basis of requisition signed by the Bank manager shall be conclusive proof that the amount specified therein is due to the Bank and further determination is excluded. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprises and another 52 DLR (AD) 57. ....View Full Judgment

Section 7

Action under section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act can only be taken against a certificate debtor and not one who is not already a certificate debtor. Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan (1960) 12 DLR (SC) 17. ....View Full Judgment

Section 7

—Consequences following from service of notice under section 7.
On the service of notice under section 7 the consequences following from it are first: any private transfer of any immovable property in the district where certificate is filed is void, and secondly, the certificate dues become a charge upon the immovable property of certificate-debtor throughout the country. Ibid.
—Sections 7-10. Any variation from the prescribed form would not be fatal in a certificate issued under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act for realisation of certificate dues. Shafiqur Rahman Vs. Certificate Officer (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 233. ....View Full Judgment

sections 7, 8, 9, &10

—Requirements to comply with the provisions embodied in sections 7, 8, 9, &10.
It is necessary to refer to the sections mentioned above namely, 7.8, 9 and 10. By section 7 when certain public demands were in arrears, the Collector of the district was to make under his hand a certificate (in the Form 2 given in the said Act) for the amount of such arrears remaining unpaid and was to cause the same to be filed in his office. By section 8 such certificate should, as regards the remedies for enforcing the same, have the force and effect of a decree of a civil court. Under section 10 such certificate having been filed in the office of the Collector, he has to issue to the Judgment- debtors a copy of such certificate and a notice in form No. 4 as given in the Act, and such certificate from the time it was served would bind all the immovable properties of the debtor if it has been attached under section 274 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Old). Such certificate u/s 19 of the Act is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as a demand for money. Shafiqur Rahman Vs. Certificate Officer (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 234. ....View Full Judgment

Section 7

A memo of delivery of possession plays a vital role in the possession of a fishery.
The appellant as well could not prove that the respondent No.1 was in possession of the disputed fishery for later period beyond the lease period and in the absence of material on record could be drawn for the alleged possession simply because it was in possession of the fishery in question in the former period. the appellant could not show any memo. of delivery of possession showing that the possession of the fishery in question for the relevant period was handed over or they were ever in possession for which they are liable to pay the salami for the period.
Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Moulavi Bazar and others. -Vs.-Pirpur Fishermen's Co-operative Society Limited. 4 ALR (AD) 2014 (2) 213 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 8 & 13

Where an assessee transfers the property in respect of which dues are charged, proper course for the authority to adopt is to attach the property itself—The only Acton which could properly be taken by the Income-Tax authorities for recovery the income-tax dues was to take out attachment the properties in this particular case on the basis they vested, in the àssessee R.P. and, thereupon, should have been open to the Trust to make an objection before the certificate-officer and thereby making it possible to obtain a resolution of the question, arising in this matter in accordance with I jurisdiction provided by the law. Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan (1960) 12 DLR (SC) 17. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 10A

The legislature as a policy decision made the changes in the law for quick recovery of the loan. Thus section 1 OA of the Act which provides for a special procedure relating to recovery of dues cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 10A

The High Court Division wrongly held that section IOA of the Act provides arbitrary power without a provision for hearing. It is the policy of .the legislature to make an enactment to that effect. It cannot be said that the law is bad because it is not in consonance with the principle of natural justice and it is harsh and arbitrary. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 10A, 51, 52 & 54

On a reference to other provisions of the Act, it is found that all the defaulting borrowers of Krishi Bank are entitled to equal protection of law provided by the Act by way of appeal, review and revision and as such the learned Judges wrongly held that section 10A offends Articles 27 and 31 of the Constitution. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194 ....View Full Judgment

Sections 13

Issue of a warrant—Issue of a distress warrant in advance against a certificate-debtor is permissible only in relation to movable property under the proviso to section 13 of the Act which provides for attachment of the whole or any part of any movable property belonging to the certificate-debtor. Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan (1950) 12 DLR (SC) 17. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 20

Defendant without title was in possession of the land sold in auction—Plaintiffs purchase of the land in certificate sale—Effect.
The question before the High Court was what title was acquired by the plaintiff in the certificate sale. And having found that the defendant was on the land without any title, the High. Court was in error in going to the question of title acquired by the plaintiff u/s 20 of the PDR Act, because defendant’s claim of title through the certificate- debtor had failed. But the defendant being in possession, the question to be determined is, whether plaintiff, has a better title to recover possession from him. Golam Hafiz Vs. Khadem Ali (1977)29 DLR (SC) 312. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 36

Import of section 36 explained—Effect of non-service u/s 7.
The true import of section 36 is that the sale in a certificate proceeding for non service of notice under section 7 is valid against the whole world for all times and as against the certificate- debtor after a period of one year from the date of delivery of property to the purchaser, if no proceeding for setting aside the sale has been started in the meanwhile.
The position is two-fold; such sale is valid as against the whole world, except the certificate- debtor it is voidable for a limited period, and valid for all times against the certificate- debtor after the prescribed period. The purchaser may claim a valid title against the certificate- debtor as well after the lapse of the period under section 36. Golam Hafez Vs. Khadem (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 313. ....View Full Judgment

Section 36

The plaintiff—respondents had moved the Circle Officer (Revenue) for setting aside the auction sale ignoring the provisions of section 36 of PDR Act. Fraud and collusion in holding auction sale were not proved.
If the auction sale stands, plaintiff respondents can no longer claim any right, title and interest in the disputed land. Alauddin Sardar vs Surendra Nath Falia 40 DLR (AD) 257. ....View Full Judgment

A memo of delivery of possession plays a vital role in the possession of a fishery and in the absence of which the appellants cannot claim that respondent No.1 possessed the fishery and should pay for it– The writ-petitioner has asserted in its petition that no possession of the disputed fishery during relevant year under claim was delivered and nothing could be shown that the respondent was ever in possession of the fishery in question for the relevant period. The appellants though asserted that they were in possession of the fishery and accordingly claimed the amount for the lease period from 1396 to 1398 B.S. and for which no premium was paid but the same is contradicted in Annexure-E to the writ petition and accordingly, the appellants could not claim the said amount for the period in which they were not in possession of fishery in question. The appellant as well could not prove that the respondent No.1 was in possession of the disputed fishery for later period beyond the lease period and in the absence of material on record could be drawn for the alleged possession simply because it was in possession of the fishery in question in the former period. Moreover, the appellant could not show any memo. of delivery of possession showing that the possession of the fishery in question for the relevant period was handed over or they were ever in possession for which they are liable to pay the salami for the period. We find no substance in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. …ADC, Moulavi Bazar=VS=Pirpur Fishermen's Co-operative Society Ltd., (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 14] ....View Full Judgment